I'm going to write a villanelle someday, but not today.
_
Why do you think people look at the stars?
Write? Play? Dream?
Act? Love?
Why do middle-aged men quit their jobs and buy motorcycles?
There are those of us
Who are caught in the middle.
Too old for Narnia and Never-Never-Land -
Too young for heaven
Torn between Lothlorien and the Western Shore -
The flaming sword still in sight -
But unreclaimable.
Backwards never,
Forwards only by the will of the tyrannous trickling sand.
What about we in the middle?
Must we ever be content to remain
Here in this wonderful terrible always
Never enough world?
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Henry V
Salutations, friends! Welcome to my first review, which is not, in fact, of a book at all. It also is an example of what my reviews will typically be like: not of popular or controversial material, and probably not terribly up-to-date either. In fact, I doubt that any of my reviews will help a single person decide what to read or watch. Instead, consider them suggestions, something I encountered and loved, or maybe didn't love, and wanted to tell you about.
Today I am reviewing a film adaptation of Shakespeare's Henry V, directed by Kenneth Branagh, who also played the title role. It came out in 1989, so don't go looking for it in theaters or anything. Also, it was nominated for Oscars in Best Director and Best Actor in a Leading Role, so it really doesn't need me to justify it to you. But I'm going to anyway.
As you may or may not know, I adore Shakespeare. I love his words, his characters, everything about his plays. Therefore, it is not actually possible for me to critique the play itself (I don't think anyone is really up to it, since to criticize something, you really should be able to do it better. And Shakespeare, well, it's Shakespeare). I'm focusing on the film itself, as a work of cinematic art. And, I must say, it does remarkably well.
If you are considering which of the histories to see, or which version of Henry V to watch for your history of England class, the answer should unquestionably be: this one. The acting is marvelous, the cinematography (lighting, camera angles, set and music) beautiful. Previous to watching it, I had not been as huge a fan of Shakespeare's histories as I was of his comedies and tragedies. I thought they were a little bit (gasp) boring. Now, I am resolved to read as many of them as I can fit in between my classes. Yes, it's that good. You probably know the plot of Henry V, since you are nerdy enough to read a blog such as this. But, just in case, it is the story, based on the real honest-to-goodness history of England, of the battle of Agincourt and the events leading up to it. King Henry of England is advised that the throne of France rightly belongs to him, and he takes an invasion force across the channel to claim it. Shakespeare, though, adds much more to these historical details, and the result is a portrait of a torn king, and an insight into the question of a just war.
I loved this movie for many different reasons. As mentioned previously, the acting is superb. My pet peeve about Shakespeare in film or theatre is that the actors always feel they need to shout every line that contains the least bit of emotion. It's very annoying. Here, that didn't happen! I was so excited! Shouting was used only when appropriate, e.g. on the battlefield. Kenneth Branagh did an excellent job of making his voice more intense when the lines called for it, in a way that I think is far more powerful than mere volume. The play itself is very powerful, and this adaptation made it even more so. Henry's two main speeches - the eve of the battle and the St. Crispin's Day speech - were well done and very moving; I even found myself tearing up a bit. The multiple battle scenes are by no stretch of the imagination boring, so you can even make your action-fan boyfriend watch it with you. Just tell him it's a war movie - which it is.
Many Shakespeare adaptations are little more than filmed plays, but this one had a strong cinematic element. The music was intense but not distracting, which was wonderful, since I love good music in my movies. The costumes and setting were absolutely stunning (it actually won an Oscar for costume design). Also striking was the use of lighting, especially in the initial scene, where Henry is persuaded to go to war, and the scene of the night before battle. It added a symbolic touch that I really appreciated, and emphasizes rather than detracts from the main themes of the play. I, since I am a bit of a history nerd, also appreciated the portrayal of the Battle of Agincourt. Throughout the film it was grey and raining, which contributed to the atmosphere and mood. However, it also contributed to the mud which was the real cause of the overwhelming victory; it was basically a crowd disaster with lots of horses and sharp things, even though that was not known in Shakespeare's time. It also included the longbows that were the presumed cause of victory until pretty recently.
Despite my overwhelming love for this film, there were a couple things I had a problem with. One, there were a few scenes in French which I, having only ever taken classes in Japanese and Latin, was unable to understand. And there were no subtitles, which I was really kinda sad about, since it looked pretty funny. So next time put subtitles, Kenneth Branagh. On a more serious note, at the end of the battle scene, the victorious army walked through the field of dead singing a hymn, "Non Nobis, Domine" (which I could understand). It translates to "not to us, Lord, but to thy name the glory" and was very triumphant and glorious-sounding. Yes, very emotional, extremely moving, but to what end? To my mind, war has been glorified enough and does not need any more romanticism attached to it. However, this does fit with the intent of Shakespeare's original play, which was a bit of a propaganda piece for England.
Anyway, that is about everything I have to say about Henry V. I encourage you to see it and read the play, because it is wonderful. Thank you for suffering through this terribly long review, and I hope it didn't turn you off my blog entirely. Have a fantastic day.
Today I am reviewing a film adaptation of Shakespeare's Henry V, directed by Kenneth Branagh, who also played the title role. It came out in 1989, so don't go looking for it in theaters or anything. Also, it was nominated for Oscars in Best Director and Best Actor in a Leading Role, so it really doesn't need me to justify it to you. But I'm going to anyway.
As you may or may not know, I adore Shakespeare. I love his words, his characters, everything about his plays. Therefore, it is not actually possible for me to critique the play itself (I don't think anyone is really up to it, since to criticize something, you really should be able to do it better. And Shakespeare, well, it's Shakespeare). I'm focusing on the film itself, as a work of cinematic art. And, I must say, it does remarkably well.
If you are considering which of the histories to see, or which version of Henry V to watch for your history of England class, the answer should unquestionably be: this one. The acting is marvelous, the cinematography (lighting, camera angles, set and music) beautiful. Previous to watching it, I had not been as huge a fan of Shakespeare's histories as I was of his comedies and tragedies. I thought they were a little bit (gasp) boring. Now, I am resolved to read as many of them as I can fit in between my classes. Yes, it's that good. You probably know the plot of Henry V, since you are nerdy enough to read a blog such as this. But, just in case, it is the story, based on the real honest-to-goodness history of England, of the battle of Agincourt and the events leading up to it. King Henry of England is advised that the throne of France rightly belongs to him, and he takes an invasion force across the channel to claim it. Shakespeare, though, adds much more to these historical details, and the result is a portrait of a torn king, and an insight into the question of a just war.
I loved this movie for many different reasons. As mentioned previously, the acting is superb. My pet peeve about Shakespeare in film or theatre is that the actors always feel they need to shout every line that contains the least bit of emotion. It's very annoying. Here, that didn't happen! I was so excited! Shouting was used only when appropriate, e.g. on the battlefield. Kenneth Branagh did an excellent job of making his voice more intense when the lines called for it, in a way that I think is far more powerful than mere volume. The play itself is very powerful, and this adaptation made it even more so. Henry's two main speeches - the eve of the battle and the St. Crispin's Day speech - were well done and very moving; I even found myself tearing up a bit. The multiple battle scenes are by no stretch of the imagination boring, so you can even make your action-fan boyfriend watch it with you. Just tell him it's a war movie - which it is.
Many Shakespeare adaptations are little more than filmed plays, but this one had a strong cinematic element. The music was intense but not distracting, which was wonderful, since I love good music in my movies. The costumes and setting were absolutely stunning (it actually won an Oscar for costume design). Also striking was the use of lighting, especially in the initial scene, where Henry is persuaded to go to war, and the scene of the night before battle. It added a symbolic touch that I really appreciated, and emphasizes rather than detracts from the main themes of the play. I, since I am a bit of a history nerd, also appreciated the portrayal of the Battle of Agincourt. Throughout the film it was grey and raining, which contributed to the atmosphere and mood. However, it also contributed to the mud which was the real cause of the overwhelming victory; it was basically a crowd disaster with lots of horses and sharp things, even though that was not known in Shakespeare's time. It also included the longbows that were the presumed cause of victory until pretty recently.
Despite my overwhelming love for this film, there were a couple things I had a problem with. One, there were a few scenes in French which I, having only ever taken classes in Japanese and Latin, was unable to understand. And there were no subtitles, which I was really kinda sad about, since it looked pretty funny. So next time put subtitles, Kenneth Branagh. On a more serious note, at the end of the battle scene, the victorious army walked through the field of dead singing a hymn, "Non Nobis, Domine" (which I could understand). It translates to "not to us, Lord, but to thy name the glory" and was very triumphant and glorious-sounding. Yes, very emotional, extremely moving, but to what end? To my mind, war has been glorified enough and does not need any more romanticism attached to it. However, this does fit with the intent of Shakespeare's original play, which was a bit of a propaganda piece for England.
Anyway, that is about everything I have to say about Henry V. I encourage you to see it and read the play, because it is wonderful. Thank you for suffering through this terribly long review, and I hope it didn't turn you off my blog entirely. Have a fantastic day.
Friday, January 21, 2011
The Mirror People
Greetings, gentle reader. (*happy dance because I finally get to say that*) This week, I am dusting off an old poem I wrote in high school. It's slightly silly and not at all sophisticated, but I do like it. You might like it too.
The initial inspiration came from a phrase in Return of the King, but it actually has very little to do with anything in that excellent book. Instead, it's more of a demonstration of how I love the classical/romantic style but am not yet very good at it.
The initial inspiration came from a phrase in Return of the King, but it actually has very little to do with anything in that excellent book. Instead, it's more of a demonstration of how I love the classical/romantic style but am not yet very good at it.
Silvered-crystal people in a bright and shining sun
Rejoice in clouds of glory
They twirl and dance and run.
Splintered sunbeams shatter as they leap from eye to eye
Pure light sounding one clear note
In a long and liquid cry.
The light reflected from the sun in limbs and faces shone
The people laugh, for it lights up
Small embers of their own.
The beaming sun laughs with them, delighting so to see
His light reflected back in all
Its radiant purity.
Dark with earth, a head looked out upon the glittering ones
What strange, peculiar people, they,
To dance out in the sun.
He peered at them through slitted eyes and, wondering, rubbed his head
This gesture of his puzzlement
Revealing just a shred
Of brightest silver, smoothest glass, now free of earth and grime
Which, as he leaned into the sun,
Began, a bit,
To shine.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Mission Statement
Hello, all. As you can see, I've decided to start a blog. The reasons for this are many: I was bored. Why not? So something interesting will come up when you google me. Because I felt like it. To get some criticism for my stuff. Just in case someone really wanted to know about my random and scattered thoughts. Rampant egotism.
This blog will include my poetry, perhaps some (very) short stories, book and movie reviews, and occasionally, some interesting thoughts that I think are worth writing down. I'll probably be dealing with some serious stuff, e.g. spirituality and religion, literary criticism, the meaning of life, etc. a good bit of the time, but when I'm not, I'll try to be at least moderately funny. Constructive criticism is more than welcome, as well as any other sort of comment you care to make. I will try to post something new once or twice a week unless I have reasonable proof that no one besides my dad is reading it.
And now, (since this is, after all, to be a primarily literature-based blog) here is my mission statement, as well as an explanation for the blog's name, in poem form:
My hands are cupped to the mirrored glass,
My own living breath frosting it with confused whorls and ferns
As I try to peer through.
If I glimpse some shadow,
I'll write it here,
Though it may be nothing.
Yes, it's probably nothing
But my own reflection.
This blog will include my poetry, perhaps some (very) short stories, book and movie reviews, and occasionally, some interesting thoughts that I think are worth writing down. I'll probably be dealing with some serious stuff, e.g. spirituality and religion, literary criticism, the meaning of life, etc. a good bit of the time, but when I'm not, I'll try to be at least moderately funny. Constructive criticism is more than welcome, as well as any other sort of comment you care to make. I will try to post something new once or twice a week unless I have reasonable proof that no one besides my dad is reading it.
And now, (since this is, after all, to be a primarily literature-based blog) here is my mission statement, as well as an explanation for the blog's name, in poem form:
My hands are cupped to the mirrored glass,
My own living breath frosting it with confused whorls and ferns
As I try to peer through.
If I glimpse some shadow,
I'll write it here,
Though it may be nothing.
Yes, it's probably nothing
But my own reflection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)